If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

There so stable if your able feed enough resources just to keep them from either BSOD or slowing to a crawl if left on for long periods of time. You can mash as much components together but you won't get a stable OS from either, 1 likes to crash when it wants, the other bloats itself with system resource expense until it's out of breath and just dies.

Yep i can see why both never did/will see themselves in a production environment.

ME wasn't built on the NT kernel and was not designed for anything other than household use. Vista was fine after SP1 and even a halfassed configuration.

When we talk about memory usage we tend to forget that unused RAM is a waste. Great, you have two gigs free... Why not use that for predictive caching?

Even for a "Home" use Me was horrid. No matter how you set it up or threw what ever mixture of "Hardware" it would BSOD when your doing basic things, God help you if you actual needed to do something or run a system intense app.

People still complain about Vista pre SP or after a SP it still bottlenecks and once again simple task become mundain.

And most home users wouldn't know the 1st thing when it comes to getting knee deep in the inner settings to make a half assed config just to keep the machine from BSOD or grinding to a halt because it's so sys resource hungry or just plain unstable.

And most home users just want to press the ON button do there thing without having to worry about if the OS is suddenly going to BSOD or grind to a halt before you can mash the save button, or have to rebuild the mbr etc because you had to hard reboot the machine cause it froze and won't recover.

Even though MS arn't going to port ie9 to XP or lower, those whom still want to experience this whole GPU wow factor Chrome 7 from the dev channel and the newer Firefox 4 Beta's have similar features enabled, You off-course need a Graphics card that is DirectX 10 ready.

Nihil, that now becoming famous crap Gateway essentials I have only has 8 MB of Video from a shitty ATI card. It has 192 MBs of RAM, and that terribly crap 433 MHz Intel Celeron Processor.

With that hardware however, I was able to run Slackware 13 with Enlightenment 17, and some nice GUI features like Ripple FX, and so on....And Opera worked great on it

Firefox loaded...Once.... I think I beat the uptime of most Windows machines just waiting for it to load though. But yea, the only two browsers I actually bothered using on that, were Opera and Epiphany. Nothing else wanted to load much.

I've also seen people on here saying "The problem with most computers and Windows is that most people have XP and not enough RAM because they still have machines with 512 MBs of RAM"....

I only have TWO machines, with more than 512 MBs of RAM. One machine I can't use because the Processor is a ****ing AMD Athlon XP 2600+, and it has 768 MBs of RAM, and then this machine, with 4 GBs of RAM.

My Laptop has 512 MBs of RAM, which is the same amount as my secondary Desktop that I use for making Music and Email, and then my Server has 384 MBs of RAM, and so I don't really have much in choices for that. Old RAM costs more money than new RAM, and I simply can't afford to buy a bunch of RAM.

I do find it strange though that someone here actually said a while back that XP wasn't working because "They only had 512 MBs of RAM".... The minimum was, as I recall, either 128 or 256 MBs of RAM.... Why is 512 not enough then?

I was always taught to test stuff on the lowest hardware configurations on site, because you do not look like a good project manager if they suddenly have to find an extra $2M for hardware to support implementation of your solution?

Anyways, you know that I am a hardware fanboi?

I probably have another 20 or so in my "museum"

EDIT:

When we talk about memory usage we tend to forget that unused RAM is a waste. Great, you have two gigs free... Why not use that for predictive caching?

Agreed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Given a WIN 32 bit system, it is practically not capable of addressing more than about 3.1GB of physical RAM.............. so I use the rest of the 4.0 to build a "ramdrive" (like 900 MB) and tell it that is where the pagefile lives

Because Windows XP is a journaling OS, it needs a pagefile......... best have it in RAM? which is a lot faster than the HDD?